hollowed-theory-hall - Tumblr blog

hollowed-theory-hall · 18 hours

Note

Pre wwii what would conditions in the orphanage Tom grew up in hsve been like? (Ie in the 1926-37 period)

Honestly, conditions would've been pretty shit. Firstly disease was rife, especially as the East End (where Wool's presumably is) was a slum throughout the Industrial Revolution and into the 20th century (with it only really changing post WWII). Tom would be familiar with stuff like mumps and whooping cough, even if he never got sick himself due to magic protecting him (as we see with Harry). But they'd also be other diseases like tuberculosis, diphtheria, scarlet fever, rickets, polio and even the flu. It's likely multiple children at the orphanage would have physical disabilities due to polio maybe even with callipers (a permanent kind of splint to help people who'd suffered from polio walk). While children would often be isolated with most illnesses, it would be incredibly difficult for an orphanage to do so, and it's probable that children died as bouts of sickness and disease spread through the orphanage. Kids who were one day at dinner are gone the next.

The first legal precedent for adopting children occurs with the Adoption of Children Act in 1926, so legal adoption how we understand it today, was fairly new. Children were lined up on Sundays, washed and in their best clothes (after attending church!) for rich people to adopt, but it tended to be a way for getting free labour rather than out of an actual desire to have children to love and care for.

I'm not sure what JKR was basing her orphanage off (likely something modern), but Tom probably wouldn't have gotten his own room, even if he was considered 'insane'. There simply wasn't enough room. Children shared a dormitory, one that could be overstuffed and cramped, sometimes even with several children to a bed. Food was similar — it was a cramped long hall (almost like a smaller, horrible version of the great hall) with rows of tables and children waiting their turn for a meal. They were probably only given one or two a day; likely gruel in the morning and bread with a stew in the evening. Tom's diet would've been vegetarian because meat was insanely expensive, although he may have had meat on Christmas and potentially Sundays if the orphanage could afford it.

On that note, Tom and the other orphans would've been Christian, most likely CoE. Although Catholic orphanages did exist, Wool's is not named after a Saint and so was more likely Protestant. Tom would've gone to church every Sunday, perhaps in a chapel on Wool's grounds, although if not, it would've been at the local church. He also would've been expected to pray. He'd go to Sunday School alongside normal school (which would've been at the local public school or perhaps, if Wool's was especially large, which I don't think it was, there would've been one of the staff who could teach or they'd bring someone in). For Christmas itself, Tom would likely get an orange which was incredibly special due to his diet likely not including fruit.

Tom would've shared everything, including clothes. He probably didn't even have underwear, and may sometimes have had to wear dresses/frocks, especially when he was younger, due to a lack of clothes. These clothes would've been stiff and itchy, potentially with lice. They would've been washed once a week, as with the orphans themselves (in large buckets!), and been hung out to dry on huge lines. Depending on how many clothes there were to go round, Tom would've spent this time in underwear (although sometimes orphans didn't even have this) or in another pair of clothes that had been worn by other children hundreds of times before. It's no wonder Tom stole — he literally had nothing, not even his own clothes (and perhaps not even underwear either).

Tom would've been expected to care for children younger than him, including babies, from a very young age. Even if he didn't enjoy it, Tom would've been good with young children and it's no wonder he was able to make Head Boy at Hogwarts because of it.

The Great Depression would've made these conditions worse. Although some of the conditions would've improved over the years, the Great Depression meant that everything was more expensive. Meals were probably downsized, if not cut entirely to one a day. The amount of kids at the orphanage probably rose during this time due to parents having to abandon children, which would've been especially prevalent in the East End which, as I've mentioned previously, was just slums and dockyard. Meat probably disappeared completely from Tom's diet, even at Christmas.

All in all, Tom's early life and conditions at the orphanage were grim. Kids died around him, conditions were cramped with diseases, illness and lice, he'd not even have his own clothes, meals would be limited, he'd spend his free time looking after kids younger than him and he'd fear being adopted. The roaring twenties were shit and the thirties shitter still. Hogwarts would've been the best thing that ever happened to Tom — it's no wonder he called it his home.

#even more Tom Riddle Historical context #I really love all your historical context posts #they're great #tom riddle #tom marvolo riddle #tom riddle meta #hp meta #hp #harry potter #voldemort

35 notes · View notes

hollowed-theory-hall · 22 hours

Note

wait how bougie was Tom Riddle Sr.? How nice would his Manor have been? Was he like an actually Lord with a title and stuff?

thank you very much for the ask, anon!

in half-blood prince, dumbledore refers to tom riddle sr. as "the squire's son" - which allows us to state with certainty that he was a minor aristocrat.

however, the word minor is important here.

there are - historically - two levels of aristocracy in britain. the first are the peers of the realm - which refers to families which hold one or more of the titles of duke, marquess, earl, or viscount. these are the elite of the elite - these gradations of nobility were created in the middle ages as a way of distinguishing those who held the titles from other noblemen, usually because of a close relationship [often one of blood or marriage or both] to the king.

the titles are hereditary by male primogeniture, and the holders - while this is no longer the case - used to have political power [such as the right to sit in the house of lords], simply by virtue of their birth.

[this is why they're called "peers" - it refers to them historically being close in status to royalty, and therefore expected to serve as royal advisors.]

there is another class of peer - a baronet - whose title is similarly hereditary, but whose position doesn't come historically with the right to sit in the lords or advise the king by virtue of birth. [baronets may - of course - have been members of parliament, or royal advisors selected at the king's discretion, but this would be separate from their title. a duke, in contrast, could historically expect to request a meeting with the king simply because he was a duke.]

while some families have historically been ennobled at the king's discretion, access to any of these titles is pretty much restricted to the small group of families who've held them for centuries.

but below the peers of the realm, there is a second, more minor class of aristocracy, the landed gentry - of which a village squire is a textbook example.

historically, what is meant by "landed" is an ability to live off of the rental income of one's country holdings, which would be leased to tenant farmers. that is, they are landlords in the original sense of the term - lords of the land. this is what tom sr. tells us his family does in half-blood prince:

“It’s not ours,” said a young man’s voice. “Everything on the other side of the valley belongs to us, but that cottage belongs to an old tramp called Gaunt, and his children. The son’s quite mad, you should hear some of the stories they tell in the village - ”

what is also meant by "landed" is that the family in question is of the upper-classes, but that they are still "commoners" - which in this context doesn't imply a value judgement, but which is a socio-legal term which simply indicates that they don't hold an aristocratic title such as duke, earl etc.

[and gentry families certainly aren't common in terms of financial standing... the most famous member of this class in literature? fitzwilliam darcy, whose ten thousand a year is something like thirteen million quid in today's money...]

gentry families might be very old - they might have received their lands from the king in the middle ages as a reward for knightly service, and it's interesting to imagine generations of gaunts and riddles brought up alongside each other in little hangleton - or they might be comparatively newer - tom sr.'s great-grandfather [feasibly born c.1810] could have been a self-made victorian industrialist who bought the lands from the original holder and established himself as gentry.

by 1900, it was becoming much harder for the gentry to live on rental income alone, and many would also have had jobs. these would have been elite, and very frequently were in politics, the civil service, the military, or the law. tom sr's father - whom the films call thomas, so let's go with that - might, for example, have served as a high-ranking officer in the army [including during the first world war], be the local magistrate, or be the local member of parliament.

in terms of titles, thomas riddle would almost undoubtedly be sir thomas - and this is how it would be correct to address him. but this title would be a courtesy, and it wouldn't be hereditary unless the riddles were also baronets [which it's entirely plausible that they were].

which is to say, tom sr. would not have a title while his father was alive - although he would have the right to be referred to formally in writing as mr thomas riddle esq. [esquire]. the correct form of verbal address for anyone other than friends and family would be to call him mr riddle, although the riddles' servants would probably refer to him as mister tom.

tom jr. would not have a title while his father or grandfather was alive. if the riddles were baronets, he would technically inherit the title after he kills the rest of the male line... but given that tom sr. never acknowledged him and his existence was presumably unknown to the riddles' lawyers this wouldn't be something which happened in reality. the estate's executors clearly took control of the riddles' property, the land was portioned off and sold, and the house became a standalone property for sale.

the riddle house - which is a name used informally for it in little hangleton, it would have a different "proper" name - is described in canon in ways which show that it's a typical manor house, which means it would look something like this:

these houses are obviously very impressive, but they're tiny in size in comparison to the magnificent stately homes - places like blenheim palace, chatsworth, burghley house, holkham hall - lived in by the titled aristocracy. the riddles would entertain - for example - by giving house parties, dinner parties, hunting parties, etc., but they wouldn't have a ballroom or a dining hall capable of seating hundreds.

[they would probably also own a property - probably a flat or small house - in london.]

they would have servants, but not colossal numbers - they would undoubtedly have a butler but not footmen, and the upstairs maids would report to the butler since they probably wouldn't have a housekeeper. they canonically have a cook, who probably had one or two kitchen maids assisting, and they canonically have a gardener - frank bryce - who probably doesn't have any assistants. they may, depending on the size of the estate, have a gamekeeper. sir thomas undoubtedly had a secretary and a chauffeur, and his wife might have a lady's maid. tom sr. would have had a nanny and then been educated until at least the age of eight by a governess, but would then have attended a prep school [either day or boarding] until the age of thirteen, and then gone to a boarding school, from which he likely went on [on the basis of social class rather than talent] to oxford or cambridge.

the family would have enormous social influence locally. most people - and also businesses - in little hangleton would be their tenants, and they would also probably have a say over the appointment of the local clergyman [an important figure in the community in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries], since the parish church is likely to have been something called a "living" - the thing which turns up again and again in jane austen - which means that the church and its parsonage technically belongs to the landowner, but is granted to the vicar as a freehold while he's in post.

gossip about the riddles' doings would also be the main source of local interest - the servants were dining out for months on tom sr.'s elopement and return.

so they're something resembling celebrities - but they're local celebrities. nobody in london - and even nobody in cities we can imagine are nearer to little hangleton, such as liverpool, would particularly know or care who they were. tom sr. might have made it into the london gossip columns if he was part of a particularly scandalous "set" [a group of friends] who socialised in the capital, but these mentions would have been fleeting - and the press would have been much more concerned by the doings of members of his set who were genuinely titled or who were legitimately famous.

[this is the reason why mrs cole doesn't recognise the name. if merope had said her son was to be named cecil beaton after his father, she may well have been prompted to hunt him down...]

so tom sr. is elite - but he's elite in a way which is extremely culturally-specific, and which is [just like the portrayal of aristocracy in the wizarding world - the blacks, for example, are far less aristocratic than the riddles in terms of canonical vibe] often exaggerated into the sort of pseudo-royal grand aristocracy which the british period-drama-industrial-complex makes such a big deal of.

and tom jr.'s character is affected by this in a series of extremely interesting ways.

by which i mean that, in terms of blood, he's probably the most aristocratic character in the series - the absence of grand aristocracy in the wizarding world would mean that [were he raised by his father] he would come from a social background which was equivalent [even as it was divided from them by virtue of being muggle] to any of his fellow slytherins, and would help him easily blend into their society because the manners, genre of socio-cultural reference points [he would recognise, for example, that quidditch heavily resembles both rugby and polo], accent and way of speaking etc. that he would possess would be broadly indistinguishable from those of his pureblood peers.

[this is why justin finch-fletchley and draco malfoy speak in essentially the same way.]

but he would then be given the enormous boost in cachet - one which would genuinely elevate him above the rest of cohort - of his maternal line.

and we see in canon that this does bestow some privilege on him among his peers while he's in school:

Tom Riddle merely smiled as the others laughed again. Harry noticed that he was by no means the eldest of the group of boys, but that they all seemed to look to him as their leader. “I don’t know that politics would suit me, sir,” he said when the laughter had died away. “I don’t have the right kind of background, for one thing.” A couple of the boys around him smirked at each other. Harry was sure they were enjoying a private joke, undoubtedly about what they knew, or suspected, regarding their gang leader’s famous ancestor.

where he's let down socially is that people like slughorn - to whom he can't reveal his slytherin ancestry and hope to maintain cover for his wrongdoing - don't think he's come from anywhere particularly special. this is because he has a muggle father - absolutely - but it's even more that he has a muggle father who, since he left him to be raised in an orphanage, was presumably working-class.

what the young voldemort lacks is any socio-cultural familiarity with the muggle class performance which the class performance of the wizarding world parallels. abraxas malfoy boasting about how important his father is would be something a tom jr. raised by the riddles could match - "oh yes, my father gives to all sorts of causes too. in fact, he was invited to buckingham palace because of it." - establishing himself as an equal in terms of class and social influence even if he isn't an equal in blood.

what actually happens in canon is that the orphaned tom - with his uncouth manners and his working-class accent - has no hope of gaining any sort of social equality with his posh peers.

so he becomes determined to outrank - and humiliate and control - them.

#this is really interesting #even more historical context about the riddles #tom riddle meta #the riddles #tom riddle #hp meta #hp #voldemort #harry potter

70 notes · View notes

hollowed-theory-hall · 1 day

Note

How does the protection magic that Lily's sacrifice placed on Harry work? On that note- how do the blood wards placed on the Dursley household operate?

Like- does the latter act as a notice me not/ fidelius of its own? Protecting Harry's location from other magicals? (It would have been easy for another Longbottom tragedy to occur after all) from what I remember the blood wards have no affect on the protection cast by Lily's sacrifice, and instead sort of extend the effect to the household???

Also on the topic of the protection- we saw the end Quirrel met. And... I just wondered- why didn't this sort of reaction extend to all the people - the Dursleys included- who laid their hands + spells on Harry with the intent to harm? By all means the blood wards should have fallen the moment The Dursleys tried to physically harm Harry. Can't see a protection powered by Lily's intent, extending to people who mean her son harm.

Unless of course the magic and the wards are targetted at Riddle specifically. Which brings the question- why didn't it set on fire/ harm anything considering even the traces of Riddle's presence/ influence. Eg. The people with the death Eater brands, the horcruxes, the soul shard inside Harry himself??

Ugh. Just so many questions.

Ps. Could the blood wards have been transferred/ worked in a residence comprising of the people Harry considered as his family and who reciprocated this sentiment? (based on the importance of intent to keep the spell going)

Wow, @ana-lyz, just like with the veil and death asks, I just started drafting a post about Lily's blood protections and what Dumbledore says about them. So...

Lily's Love Protection and Dumbledore's Blood Wards

Alright, strap in...

Okay, so let's start by seeing what we're told about the blood protections and whether we can gather something cohesive that makes magical sense out of it.

We have Voldemort's statement on this piece of magic:

“...I wanted Harry Potter’s blood. I wanted the blood of the one who had stripped me of power thirteen years ago . . . for the lingering protection his mother once gave him would then reside in my veins too. . . . “But how to get at Harry Potter? For he has been better protected than I think even he knows, protected in ways devised by Dumbledore long ago, when it fell to him to arrange the boy’s future. Dumbledore invoked an ancient magic, to ensure the boy’s protection as long as he is in his relations’ care. Not even I can touch him there. . . .

(GoF, 657)

Notice there is the lingering protection from Lily's magic and the ancient magic Dumbledore invoked. These are, I believe separate spells.

Dumbledore's statements:

“But why couldn’t Quirrell touch me?” “Your mother died to save you. If there is one thing Voldemort cannot understand, it is love. He didn’t realize that love as powerful as your mother’s for you leaves its own mark. Not a scar, no visible sign…to have been loved so deeply, even though the person who loved us is gone, will give us some protection forever. It is in your very skin. Quirrell, full of hatred, greed, and ambition, sharing his soul with Voldemort, could not touch you for this reason. It was agony to touch a person marked by something so good.”

(PS, 215)

“But I knew too where Voldemort was weak. And so I made my decision. You would be protected by an ancient magic of which he knows, which he despises, and which he has always, therefore, underestimated — to his cost. I am speaking, of course, of the fact that your mother died to save you. She gave you a lingering protection he never expected, a protection that flows in your veins to this day. I put my trust, therefore, in your mother’s blood. I delivered you to her sister, her only remaining relative.” “She doesn’t love me,” said Harry at once. “She doesn’t give a damn —” “But she took you,” Dumbledore cut across him. “She may have taken you grudgingly, furiously, unwillingly, bitterly, yet still she took you, and in doing so, she sealed the charm I placed upon you. Your mother’s sacrifice made the bond of blood the strongest shield I could give you.” “I still don’t —” “While you can still call home the place where your mother’s blood dwells, there you cannot be touched or harmed by Voldemort. He shed her blood, but it lives on in you and her sister. Her blood became your refuge. You need return there only once a year, but as long as you can still call it home, there he cannot hurt you. Your aunt knows this. I explained what I had done in the letter I left, with you, on her doorstep. She knows that allowing you houseroom may well have kept you alive for the past fifteen years.”

(OotP, 835-836)

Here again, Dumbledore mentions the ancient magic he made the decision to protect Harry with as a separate thing from the lingering protection from Lily.

And (as per this post) the Dumbledore Harry hallucinates statement:

“He took my blood.” said Harry. “Precisely!” said Dumbledore. “He took your blood and rebuilt his living body with it! Your blood in his veins, Harry, Lily’s protection inside both of you! He tethered you to life while he lives!”

(DH, 598)

And then we have what happened to Quirrell:

Quirrell raised his hand to perform a deadly curse, but Harry, by instinct, reached up and grabbed Quirrell’s face — “AAAARGH!” Quirrell rolled off him, his face blistering, too, and then Harry knew: Quirrell couldn’t touch his bare skin, not without suffering terrible pain — his only chance was to keep hold of Quirrell, keep him in enough pain to stop him from doing a curse. Harry jumped to his feet, caught Quirrell by the arm, and hung on as tight as he could. Quirrell screamed and tried to throw Harry off — the pain in Harry’s head was building — he couldn’t see — he could only hear Quirrell’s terrible shrieks and Voldemort’s yells of, “KILL HIM! KILL HIM!”

(PS, 212)

What we know from this

Well, from the above quotes we can divide the magical protections on Harry into 2 different spells as I mentioned above:

Lily's sacrificial love protection - the intention magic Lily cast by protecting her son. This is the magic that blocked the Killing Curse and killed Quirrell.

Dumbledore's blood ward - this is the spell Dumbledore cast that (supposedly) protects Harry in his relatives' home. Voldemort says Dumbledore invoked this magic, and Dumbledore also mentions it's a ward he left that built upon Lily's protection, but it's not a spell Lily left.

So, what can Lil'y Sacrificial Love Protection do:

Makes the Killing Curse not kill Harry.

Returns the Killing Curse back to the sender.

Continues to hurt that initial "sender" whenever he tries to kill Harry.

What about Dumbledore's Blood Wards what do they do:

Nothing.

Dumbledore and Voldemort say this magic exists but it never does anything. We never see it active, it never protects Harry from anyone, neither his relatives nor Death Eaters. So, we don't know what it's supposed to be doing since it doesn't do anything in the books.

Voldemort says it won't allow him to touch Harry in his relatives' house.

How I think these spells actually work

I'll start with Dumbledore's Blood Wards:

I simply don't think this ward actually exists.

Dumbledore isn't very consistent with how this protection works. He says Harry needs to return for a bit to live with Petunia for the magic to work, but if that's all the requirement, why long weeks? Couldn't he return for a shorter time? And each year he spends a different amount of time at Private Drive? Couldn't he always be sent back just for the minimal required time? At first, the ward was about love but then it isn't, he says this: "While you can still call home the place where your mother’s blood dwells, there you cannot be touched or harmed by Voldemort."

Harry didn't think of Private Drive as a home:

Harry could hardly believe it when he realized that he’d already been at Hogwarts two months. The castle felt more like home than Privet Drive ever had.

(PS, 123)

“I believe he had several reasons, though he confided none of them to Professor Dippet,” said Dumbledore. “Firstly, and very importantly, Voldemort was, I believe, more attached to this school than he has ever been to a person. Hogwarts was where he had been happiest; the first and only place he had felt at home.” Harry felt slightly uncomfortable at these words, for this was exactly how he felt about Hogwarts too.

(HBP, 431)

Harry never considered Private Drive and the Dursleys his home. Hogwarts was his first home.

If there is no love and it isn't a home, even if Dumbledore did cast a blood ward based on Petunia and Lily's sacrifice it won't actually be active. But personally, I don't think this ward actually exists.

Dumbledore needs a reason to keep Harry with his relatives.

Dumbledore needs Harry malleable, low on self-esteem, and lacking in a support network. Because he knew since October 1981 (but probably before) that he'd likely need Harry to die. He suspected Harry was a Horcrux from practically day 1:

Under a tuft of jetblack hair over his forehead they could see a curiously shaped cut, like a bolt of lightning. “Is that where —?” whispered Professor McGonagall. “Yes,” said Dumbledore. “He’ll have that scar forever.” “Couldn’t you do something about it, Dumbledore?” “Even if I could, I wouldn’t. Scars can come in handy...

(PS, 13-14)

And being raised by the Dursleys ensured that when the time came, when Dumbledore needed Harry to die to destroy Voldemort, Harry would be willing. Because Harry would not put much worth in his own life. Because of that, I think it's not outside the realm of possibility Dumbledore would lie about this ward to have an excuse to keep sending Harry to the Dursleys.

(Sure, Dumbledore would've preferred not to kill Harry if it could be avoided, but he had been preparing for the situation since October 1981)

It's not like he did anything to better their treatment of Harry until book 6, when he needed Harry to start trusting him more...

And like I mentioned above, even if the ward was there, it would not be active because Private Drive was never a home for Harry. And after year 4, when Voldemort took his blood, any protection from any blood-related magic would be moot. Because Voldemort would not be counted as a threat by the ward.

So Dumbledore sending Harry back to the Dursleys after he knew the wards he left (if they were there at all) were gone, proves to me Harry's placement at the Dursleys was never about the wards to begin with. Because if the blood wards are gone, literally anywhere else around wizards who could protect Harry would be safer than at the Dursleys, even when thinking of Death Eaters and Voldemort as the only threat. If they came to find Harry at Private Drive, nothing would've stopped them (except Harry himself).

I could guess wards like this, if they actually were active, would have been an extension of Lily's protection and stopped Voldemrot from being able to enter the Dursleys' residence. From what's said, it seems this ward seems to target Voldemrot specifically, and no one else. But, as I mentioned, I don't think it's really there.

Lil'y Sacrificial Love Protection:

I mentioned in the past how intention and emotion mean a lot for magic in the HP universe. Lily, a witch who we are told repeatedly was powerful, intelligent, and talented, could very well cast a powerful protection out of her love and intention to protect her son. That is 100% possible with what we see magic is capable of and how magic seems to work.

That being said, the fact this never happened before suggests to me Lily did something different than just having a very strong wish for her son to survive. Dumbledore says it's because she had a choice, and in a way it is, but not because Voldemort gave her the option not to die, but because she chose to die instead of Harry.

I'll try to explain it, bear with me.

“Not Harry, not Harry, please not Harry!” “Stand aside, you silly girl. . . stand aside now.” “Not Harry, please no, take me, kill me instead—” “This is my last warning—” “Not Harry! Please . . . have mercy. . . have mercy. . . . Not Harry! Not Harry! Please—I’ll do anything—” “Stand aside. Stand aside, girl!”

(DH, 297)

This is the "spell" Lily casts — the incantation. This is her wish moments before her death: "Not Harry, kill me instead," that's what she says, that's her promise, that's her wish, that's the magic.

Lily's protection only works on Voldemort because her spell essentially made a bargain with Voldemort (that he didn't agree to). that he'd kill her instead of Harry. Once he killed Lily, he couldn't kill Harry because that was the protection she left him, and Voldemort won't be able to kill him because she died in his stead.

That's why we don't see the same thing happen after James dies to buy Lily and Harry time, why when others die to protect someone they aren't protected from the killing curse. What Lily did is a combination of a few extraordinary circumstances coming together:

She's an incredibly powerful witch (shown by her childhood magic that was very controlled and advanced (not unlike Tom Riddle) and Slughorn's boasting)

She loved Harry dearly. Loved him enough to power an accidental spell.

Chose and intended to die instead of her son. She had intent when making her plea, intent required for any spell.

So what essentially happened is that Lily created a situation where Voldemort physically can't kill Harry because Lily died in his stead. If, for example, Quirrell touched Harry without intending to kill him (like he did when they shook hands in Diagon Alley or when he pulled Harry to stand in front of the mirror) the protection won't activate. All it does is stop Voldemort from killing Harry because he already killed Lily in Harry's stead.

So, Voldemort, as I mentioned in the past, wants to kill Harry, this is his only ambition in the 2nd war. So he takes Harry's blood into himself so the protection won't work anymore. And we see it doesn't in the woods when Voldemort casts the killing curse and it doesn't rebound back on him (which would've happened otherwise).

This love protection from Lily doesn't require anything to stay active. It was cast because Voldemort killed her and Harry doesn't need to do anything to keep it active. Staying with the Dursleys wasn't for the sake of Lily's spell but for Dumbledore's ward.

As for Lily's spell not protecting Hary from anything else, like I mentioned, the bargain was that Voldemort would kill her instead of Harry, it would only protect Harry from being killed by Voldemort. If Voldemort just asked a random Death Eater to kill Harry it still wouldn't have worked, but that won't be because of Lily's love magic, but because of Harry pretty much always being the Master of Death.

Basically, Voldemort was doomed because he had no chance of killing Harry. Ever.

But what about when Harry died in book 7 and said he cast the same sacrificial love?

Well, I don't think Harry cast the same sacrificial love. His feelings and intentions were completely different. In his case, I think he just took the mastership of the Elder Wand so it wasn't performing as well for Voldemort afterward.

Conclusions

There are actually two different and distinct spells referred to by the characters when it comes to the protections Lily left for Harry.

The first is Lily's Sacrificial Love Spell which worked like a bargain. She pleaded with Voldemort to kill her instead of Harry and after he killed her, he could no longer kill Harry because he was protected.

Voldemort taking Harry's blood does indeed circumvent this spell and allows him to kill Harry in the woods (if temporarily).

The second is the Blood Ward Dumbledore talks about that is supposedly placed on the Dursleys' home. This spell was invoked by Dumbledore and is not part of Lily's spell.

It's supposed to build on and strengthen Lily's protection from what's implied.

this second spell would've stopped its activity the moment Harry stopped considering number 4, Private Drive his home (which happened quite young, as he doesn't remember ever considering it a home)

Personally, I don't think this blood ward ever existed, but even if it did, it was moot from the get-go and never done anything.

Voldemort taking Harry's blood in year 4, circumvented this ward too.

Basically, Dumbledore kept Harry at the Durselys less because of the wards and more because it suited him to ensure Harry would become the martyr he needed him to be (something I should write a full post about eventually).

#harry potter #hp #asks #ana-lyz #harry james potter #lily potter #harry potter meta #hp meta #hollowedtheory #albus dumbledore #lily evans

32 notes · View notes

hollowed-theory-hall · 1 day

Note

Hey I have a question for you. What's your theory/headcanon about how and where and why Tom got his diary?

Hi!

I don't think the story of how Tom got the diary is a particularly interesting one.

Harry turned to the back cover of the book and saw the printed name of a variety store on Vauxhall Road, London. “He must’ve been Muggle-born,” said Harry thoughtfully. “To have bought a diary from Vauxhall Road. . . .”

(CoS, 216)

So, Tom got the diary in a muggle store on Vauxhall Road, which is a street in London (irl the closest is Vauxhall Bridge Road from what I saw). We know he bought it in the summer of 1942 (the summer before his 5th year) or earlier since he turns it into a Horcrux in June 1943 and doesn't return to the Orphanage at Christmas (I explain the timeline here).

The most interesting aspect of this is where Tom got the money? He's a poor, orphan, who we're led to believe wouldn't have money for anything extra (assuming he receives money for his Hogwarts stuff). And I don't see Tom asking his rich pure-blood housemates for money.

So, there are a few possibilities:

He saved up some spare change on the side to buy it for himself (considering the depression, the war, and the rations I don't see why he'd spend money on a notebook and not, idk, food? Magical books and items he wants?).

He stole it from the store (which I'm sure is what Dumbledore believes).

With the bombings that hit London throughout these years Tom was at Hogwarts, it's possible he just picked it up. There was chaos and mess and he might've lived on the streets for a certain period during his summers in London (some historical context is discussed in this reblog chain). So, it's very much possible he didn't buy it or take it from the store but just found it, without intentionally stealing it from anyone. In that way, the diary could be more sentimental and meaningful to turn into a Horcrux. Since it's a notebook that survived the bombs. The diary is a sign of survival — it survived like Tom did. So, I think he'd get even more attached to it if this was its story. Also, an item symbolizing survival is all the more meaningful to turn into a Horcrux.

(I decided option 3 is my headcanon as I wrote it)

#harry potter #hp #tom riddle #tom marvolo riddle #voldemort #lord voldemort #asks #anon asks #anonymous #hollowedheadcanon

22 notes · View notes

hollowed-theory-hall · 2 days

Note

Hi! I have a doubt about how horrocruxes work. Let's say you make two horrocruxes and then you are killed, and obviously you don't really die. Now my question is does one of your horrocruxes disappear and you're only left with one for next time, or do they both remain intact?

Hi!

I mentioned the basic idea of how I believe Horcruxes keep you alive in a former post:

Magic, theoretically, works according to the microcosm macrocosm concept that exists in alchemy and occult theories and philosophy in general. What it means is that a small-scale example of something will affect the larger, true-scale version of that thing. For a Harry Potter example that isn't Horcruxes: you wave your wand and say Wingardoum Leviosa — so you essentially "act out" how you want the feather to levitate with your wand and incantation. Then your magic causes the same to happen to the feather. Your wand and incantation are the microcosm and the feather floating is the macrocosm. A Horcrux works similarly. The reason they stop you from dying is that a microcosm version of you, the soul shard, is bound to the mortal plain and can't die. So, by the microcosm macrocosm logic, you won't be able to leave the mortal plain and die either since you are the relevant macrocosm. Essentially binding the soul pieces in the Horcrux to Earth binds you too, to Earth. But you aren't bonded as strongly to the Horcruxes. That's why he can't sense them. They bind him to the world of the living, not so much to each one of them.

(From this post)

So essentially, what a Horcrux does is act as an anchor for a part of your soul, and as such binds the entire soul. If you die, the Horcrux stops you from moving on into the afterlife. It won't make you a new body or anything like that. Hence why Voldemort stayed as a wraith for as long as he did.

So, for your question, both Horcruxes would remain intact, as we see happens with Voldemort's Horcruxes in the books.

I think it's important to note that Voldemort decided he should make multiple Horcruxes. In general, the ritual for a Horcrux is intended to make one Horcrux, hide and protect it well, and voilà you're immortal (sorta). The intention was never to have multiple Horcruxes. Voldemort is just paranoid and way too curious for his own good.

#harry potter #hp #asks #hp meta #anonymous #anon asks #horcruxes #horcrux #voldemort #tom riddle #lord voldemort

18 notes · View notes

hollowed-theory-hall · 2 days

Note

Ohh, this is a very interesting discussion. I always kinda saw Aururs as specialized investigators, because of the high grades required and the need for stealth and disguise in their training. It all leads to a highly specialized investigative force.

I agree about the Magical Law Enforcement Patrol being closer to what we consider a police officer.

Then I always considered Hit Wizards to be more like a dispatch unit. They don't do tracking down and investigating, they just come in to take the criminal in. Especially if it's a dangerous wizard that needs to be arrested.

Then that leaves Aururs as detectives/investigators, as the op posed. They're more specialized and trained in stealth so they could sleuth without being seen.

The fact they also go abroad is interesting. About @perilousraven's mention of the Department of International Magical Cooperation, I think they have a part in it, but it always seemed like the DMLE is a more respected department in the ministry that's given more attention (and funding, probably). Like, Crouch Sr was demoted from being the head of the DMLE to being the head of the DIMC, so the DMLE is probably calling the shots and the DIMC needs to make sure what the DMLE wants happens. Maybe the DIMC has a clerk who coordinates the Aururs abroad with the DMLE and international magical governments on the DMLE orders.

Do you think Aurors are the same as Muggle cops, or do you think it's different?

Ah, I anticipated this follow-up question (and the political undercurrent that comes with it). The Magical Law Enforcement Patrol would be akin to "cops." Aurors are different. And I think canon gives us plenty of evidence for the distinction:

"[Moody's] retired, used to work at the Ministry," said Charlie. "[...] He was an Auror-- one of the best... a Dark wizard catcher," he added, seeing Harry's blank look.

"[...] I only hope we can catch whoever's [charming the regurgitating toilets]." "Will it be Aurors who catch them?" "Oh no, this is too trivial for Aurors, it'll be the ordinary Magical Law Enforcement Patrol."

"Well, it'd be cool to be an Auror," said Ron in an offhand voice. "Yeah, it would," said Harry fervently. "But they're, like, the elite," said Ron. "You've got to be really good."

"Well, I thought of, maybe, being an Auror," Harry mumbled. "You'd need top grades for that," said Professor McGonagall, extracting a small, dark leaflet from under the mass on her desk and opening it. "They ask for a minimum of five NEWTs, and nothing under 'Exceeds Expectations' grade, I see. Then you would be required to undergo a stringent series of character and aptitude tests at the Auror office. It's a difficult career path, Potter; they only take the best. In fact, I don't think anybody has been taken on in the last three years." [...] "What sort of character and aptitude tests do the Ministry do on you, if you get enough NEWTs?" "Well, you'll need to demonstrate the ability to react well to pressure and so forth," said Professor McGonagall, "perseverance and dedication, because Auror training takes a further three years, not to mention very high skills in practical defense. It will mean a lot more study even after you've left school [...]"

"I was born [a Metamorphmagus]. I got top marks in Concealment and Disguise during Auror training without any study at all, it was great." "You're an Auror?" said Harry, impressed. [...] "Yeah," said Tonks, looking proud. "Kingsley is as well; he's a bit higher up than I am, though. I only qualified a year ago. Nearly failed on Stealth and Tracking, I'm dead clumsy [...]"

"Having Aurors on our side is a huge advantage-- Kingsley Shacklebolt's been a real asset too. He's in charge of the hunt for Sirius, so he's been feeding the Ministry information that Sirius is in Tibet."

"I [Voldemort] dared not go where other humans were plentiful, for I knew the Aurors were still abroad and searching for me."

"[Frank and Alice] were Aurors, you know, and very well respected within the Wizarding community," Mrs Longbottom went on. "Highly gifted, the pair of them."

"I'm sure you are an excellent Auror, [Dawlish], I seem to remember that you achieved 'Outstanding' in all your NEWTs [...]"

From the above quotes, we can glean that becoming an Auror requires higher education and training, stringent exams, and is exceedingly competitive and exclusive (none of which is particularly true of a Muggle police officer). We can gather that they are a particularly well respected profession and that these individuals are viewed as smart, magically powerful, and admirable people. We also understand that they are not concerned with petty criminals and your run-of-the-mill misdemeanors, but are pulled in specifically for cases involving individuals accused of Dark Magic on a much larger scale. We know them to be a governmental agency and can see that their jurisdiction is not confined to Magical Britain and Ireland, but that they do work abroad (presumably in cooperation with the government of those nations). The conclusion I reach is that Aurors are more akin to detectives/investigators with institutions more similar to Muggle Interpol, the National Crime Agency, and the Secret Intelligence Service.

And, one can only hope, lack the institutionalized racism.

#harry potter #hp #ministry of magic #wizarding world

35 notes · View notes

hollowed-theory-hall · 2 days

Text

All the possibilities you mentioned are fascinating, and so are @perilousraven's additions about why it probably wasn't a love potion.

I love the idea that Tom didn't go to his father initially with the intent to kill him. I actually think it's highly likely. I mean, he's an orphan, during World War II, he's poor and so so alone, of course he'd want a family if he could have one. I think he hoped his father just didn't know he existed and would take him in. He probably knew it'd be more complicated than that, but I think he hoped his father or any other family honestly, just didn't know about him.

I went to check the conversation Tom had with Morfin about it, and it suggests Tom didn't actually know about Tom Riddle Sr:

“You speak it?” “Yes, I speak it,” said Riddle. He moved forward into the room, allowing the door to swing shut behind him. Harry could not help but feel a resentful admiration for Voldemort’s complete lack of fear. His face merely expressed disgust and, perhaps, disappointment. “Where is Marvolo?” he asked. “Dead,” said the other. “Died years ago, didn’t he?” Riddle frowned. “Who are you, then?” “I’m Morfin, ain’t I?” “Marvolo’s son?” “ ’Course I am, then . . .” [...] “I thought you was that Muggle,” whispered Morfin. “You look mighty like that Muggle.” “What Muggle?” said Riddle sharply. “That Muggle what my sister took a fancy to, that Muggle what lives in the big house over the way,” said Morfin, and he spat unexpectedly upon the floor between them. “You look right like him. Riddle. But he’s older now, in ’e? He’s older’n you, now I think on it. . . .” Morfin looked slightly dazed and swayed a little, still clutching the edge of the table for support. “He come back, see,” he added stupidly. Voldemort was gazing at Morfin as though appraising his possibilities. Now he moved a little closer and said, “Riddle came back?” “Ar, he left her, and serve her right, marrying filth!” said Morfin, spitting on the floor again. “Robbed us, mind, before she ran off! Where’s the locket, eh, where’s Slytherin’s locket?”

(HBP, 364-365)

From this it seems to me Tom tracked down the name Marvolo Gaunt when he went to Little Hangleton and hoped to find his family, he didn't know Marvolo was dead, but he knew he had a son named Morfin and he possibly knew about Merope.

I especially like the detail about Tom being disappointed. He probably did hope for a family to take him in, someone he could connect to, but all he found was a disappointment.

And Morfin clearly states Riddle Sr left Merope, if not for magic (but this is an easy-to-reach conclusion for Tom who was rejected for his magic at the orphanage). But, I think Tom was more hopeful when he approached his father at first. Tom is someone who I believe does want a connection, so I like the idea he tracked his father already angry from Morfin's words, disappointed from what he saw from the magical side of his family but still keeping a sliver of hope for his muggle family. Then I assume Riddle Sr reacted to Tom negatively (as you mentioned) and killing Tom killed them in passion. I honestly don't think he set off to kill the Riddles when he went to meet them.

Made it a little bit more about Tom than Merope here, but I agree a love potion seems very unlikely.

Are we sure Merope actually used a love potion?

I think it’s weird the Dumbledore assumes Merope used a love potion.

She had no money to buy it or to buy the ingredients. The only thing she had of value was the locket and we know she didn’t sell that till much later. She didn’t even know much about the outside world so she would have had trouble finding where to go to acquire it or the ingredients needed to brew it herself. Plus making love potion herself would be very difficult when she’s had no access to education.

Out of universe JKR is using Dumbledore to info dump what happened. But in universe he has no evidence that she used a love potion and using a magical compulsion spell of some type like the Imperius Curse makes much more sense given the resources she had at her disposal. (Even though I really love the symbolism of the love potion for thematic reasons).

It’s also possible (if unlikely) that he did just run away with her and then leave her in horror when he realized what she was. (Or she could have used magic to make herself seem more appealing or even to impersonate someone else to get him to run off with her.) Voldemort himself seems to believe this because he talks in books 4 and 2 about how his father abandoned his mother when he learned what she was. I don’t see a reason for him to lie about this since it would look better given his cause to say that his mother came to her senses and left her muggle lover. Of course, he’s probably partly projecting his own experiences of rejection in the Muggle works due to his powers onto events. And he also may not know the truth about what happened. Or he does know and Dumbledore got it wrong.

#harry potter #hp #tom riddle #hp meta #merope gaunt

90 notes · View notes

hollowed-theory-hall · 2 days

Text

Whenever I see someone thinking Harry's and Ron's grades are average or the guys are a bit dumb, I know it's coming from someone very young and unfamiliar with the British grade system of the 80s. I've just seen people complaining that Hermione received one EE as if it is horrible. Not in this specific universe!

Rowling clearly based Hogwarts' grading system on O-levels and A-levels from the 1980s, when she went to school. At that time, there was no grade inflation yet (nowadays, almost half of the year receives an A, and they have even added an A* to better differentiate).

The number of A grades was restricted to 10% at most. Students even got into universities with BBC grades, and B used to be something to be proud of.

A, B, and C assured you that you could continue with the subject at A-levels reserved for university applicants. I've seen our transfer students freaking out because of a B even though it's exceeding the expected amount of knowledge.

Hermione not receiving one O is just her not outshining everyone else in a single subject. Harry and Ron receiving that many good passes while not even studying half as much as Hermione is a tremendous achievement.

Moreover, let's remember that grades are correlated with high executive functioning skills, not high intelligence or general ability. The grade distribution was not bell-shaped the way the IQ is, even in the 80s. And the canon is pretty clear that magical power, at least at the school level, isn't either. So, the Golden Trio is brilliant; it's not 2024; they are in the UK. Let's mind the context while analyzing old books.

#hp #hp meta #harry potter #ron weasley #hermione granger #golden trio #they're all smart

141 notes · View notes

hollowed-theory-hall · 3 days

Text

Hope you don't mind me hijacking your posts repeatedly, but this is really interesting.

As per usual, Dumbledore does a lot of guessing about what Merope did:

“Can you not think of any measure Merope could have taken to make Tom Riddle forget his Muggle companion and fall in love with her instead?” “The Imperius Curse?” Harry suggested. “Or a love potion?” “Very good. Personally, I am inclined to think that she used a love potion. I am sure it would have seemed more romantic to her, and I do not think it would have been very difficult, some hot day, when Riddle was riding alone, to persuade him to take a drink of water. In any case, within a few months of the scene, we have just witnessed, the village of Little Hangleton enjoyed a tremendous scandal. You can imagine the gossip it caused when the squire’s son ran off with the tramp’s daughter, Merope...

(HBP, 213)

Harry thinks the Imperius is definitely on the table as a means by which it could've happened. Dumbledore is just making assumptions about Merope's character that he has no real basis for. With how hard some ingredients are to come by, I agree that Merope using a spell (be it a compulsion, a confundus, some kind of glamour, or a memory charm) is far more likely.

(I'm leaning towards a confundus or a compulsion and not a full-on imperius curse or memory charm because these are more complex kinds of magic. And we know Merope wasn't a very powerful or skilled witch. So, she's likely to lean on spells that require less skill and precision.)

As for what you said about Voldemort, that's a great catch. I hadn't considered it until you mentioned it. It's actually possible he knows something Dumbledore doesn't. We know Voldemort is an incredible Legilimence, and he went to kill his father when he was 16. Considering he planted false memories in his uncle's mind, he was already an accomplished Legilimence by then. It's possible he took the memories of exactly what happened with Merope and Tom Snr out of his father's mind before killing him. Dumbledore would have no way of knowing that.

From Tom's words though:

“You see that house upon the hillside, Potter? My father lived there. My mother, a witch who lived here in this village, fell in love with him. But he abandoned her when she told him what she was. . . . He didn’t like magic, my father . . . “He left her and returned to his Muggle parents before I was even born, Potter, and she died giving birth to me, leaving me to be raised in a Muggle orphanage . . . but I vowed to find him . . . I revenged myself upon him, that fool who gave me his name . . . Tom Riddle. . . .”

(GoF, 646)

It sounds like he determined he was abandoned before he found his father, as he's likely to feel as someone raised as an orphan who discovered they actually have a living parent. And a parent who lives very well.

That being said, his description of what happened with Merope, that she was abandoned for her magic seems oddly specific. Could be projection like you said, but it could also be from memories he extracted. At the very least, it doesn't sound like Tom killed his father instantly, it sounds like they exchanged a few words at least. I think Voldemort saying his father didn't like magic is truthful.

Are we sure Merope actually used a love potion?

I think it’s weird the Dumbledore assumes Merope used a love potion.

#harry potter #hp #harry potter thoughts #merope gaunt #albus dumbledore #tom riddle #voldemort

90 notes · View notes

hollowed-theory-hall · 3 days

Text

Yeah, I agree with a lot of what you added. Dumbledore does see himself as doing what is "necessary" for "the greater good". And when you think you can hardly do any wrong and that you are ultimately good regardless of what you do, it's easy to fall into doing wrong.

And on the note of his appreciation for love and how much he derides Tom for being incapable of it, Dumbledore doesn't actually have any close friends — or, really, friends at all.

No one knows everything about him. He doesn't trust or open up to anyone (just like Tom), and you can't create real, loving relationships like he keeps talking about without trust. When he is just as distrusting as Tom.

The people from his generation, like Aunt Muriel, are suspicious of him because as much as he mocks Tom for seeing himself as special, Dumbledore sees himself just as special. He was glad to find Grindlewald because he finally had an equal he could be friends with:

“Grindelwald. And at last, my brother had an equal to talk to someone just as bright and talented he was. And looking after Ariana took a backseat then, while they were hatching all their plans for a new Wizarding order and looking for Hallows, and whatever else it was they were so interested in.

(DH, 480)

Anyone else, like Muriel or Aberforth and even the Order and the other teachers, he didn't ever see them on the same level as him and looked down on them. You can't have friends who aren't your equals, which explains why he only ever befriended Grindlewald.

If we look at Elphias Doge and Dedalus Diggle, two wizards who adore Dumbledore from his generation — they don't actually know him either. They look up to him, see him as this amazing, high, and mighty figure like the Weasleys do — but they're not his friends. Because Dumbledore doesn't actually have any of those.

“Elphias Doge mentioned her to us,” said Harry, trying to spare Hermione. “That old berk,” muttered Aberforth, taking another swig of mead. “Thought the sun shone out of my brother’s every office, he did. Well, so did plenty of people, you three included, by the looks of it.”

(DH, 478)

It seems like no one really knows Dumbledore except his brother and Grindlewald. The only people Dumbledore allowed to know him (by force or choice), flaws and all.

I just find it interesting (and hypocritical) how he calls Tom evil for not having friends, for being cold and distrusting, and not experiencing love, when he himself is just the same. Like Tom, he doesn't have friends, he has "followers". People who look up to him as an omnipotent source of all the answer and their guide forward, not just a man. Not dissimilar to how the Death Eaters see Voldemort (or how Voldemort wants to be seen).

Originally put this in a message to someone but I'm still salty so I'm posting it here too.

I just keep thinking about how Dumbledore is presented as this great advocate for equality and justice in the Wizarding World but what does he actually do? For example, it's said he "opposed" the killing of the last giants in Britain (implying there was a state sanctioned genocide btw) but like...how did he oppose it? Dumbledore does not care about respecting the Ministry or following the law when it doesn't suit him ad he is also tremendously powerful and essentially has his own private army. (Not to mention that until Voldemort's second reign it seems he was generally respected and influential in the Ministry and held a lot of sway there). So if he really wanted to stop it, he could've done a lot but it sort of seems as though he was more like 'oh no...don't do that...oh well...'

And there are so many other instances like this. He says Sirius was wrong to mistreat Kreacher but did he even once try to intervene? Does he ever make a rule saying that using slurs like "Mudblood" is against the rules? He has full control of the Hogwarts curriculum until 5th year but does he make Muggle Studies mandatory to expose Purebloods to information that could prevent their radicalization into anti-Muggle organizations? Does he try to get legislation passed to prevent the wanton use of spells on Muggles to modify or wipe their memories despite the risks of such magic? No! He does none of these things.

He seems pretty happy to let the status quo be and focuses mainly on Tom Riddle - who he has been bizarrely fixated on in a kind of disturbing way since the first time they met - while ignoring the larger, systemic problems in wizarding society and doing little to aid the groups he claims to represent.

#albus dumbledore #Harry Potter #hp #hp meta

60 notes · View notes

hollowed-theory-hall · 3 days

Note

I LOVE the historical context you add to tom riddle meta. im curious. at that time how important and wealthy would tom riddle sr likely have been? i.e. how nice was the life that Tom missed out on by growing up in the orphanage instead of with his dad?

Omg thanks so much!

We don't actually know much about the Riddles. They likely lived in Yorkshire, Lancashire, or the very west of Cornwall (200 miles from Surrey as per Goblet of Fire), but I think it's more likely they lived in the North, specifically in Yorkshire. The Riddle's name is probably locational rather than profession based, and from a village called Ryedale in the North Riding of Yorkshire. It was probably mutated over time because spelling wasn't standardised or even close to standardisation when last names were beginning to become a thing (roughly 11th century in Britain).

Okay, now the reason I went into that is because I believe the Riddles were the big guys back in the day (by which I mean late medieval period c. 1100s until the late 1500s) and were the kind of wealthy landowners who employed serfdom potentially even past the Peasant's Revolt of 1381. I know a lot of people place them as merchants who made money from trade but based on their name and location (Yorkshire is famous for its sheep) I think it's more likely they were landowners. They probably had pretty solid generational wealth, potentially even being landed gentry (a class of gentry who made their money on leasing land and known as lords of the manor), although I'm fairly certain they lost most of this later. I don't think they ever were part of the peerage (the level above gentry in the British aristocracy who hold hereditary titles) but gentry usually married into peerage and vis versa so they were likely quite connected despite never being "Lords" themselves. They got their name through their association with the village as the big whigs.

Even if the Riddles had kept up serfdom for a century or so after the Peasants Revolt (entirely plausible), serfdom was abolished by Elizabeth I in 1574. Whenever they stopped working as part of the feudal system, I don't think it had major impacts on their wealth. Like I mentioned above, they were probable landed gentry, making their money by leasing out land and still profiting off the lower classes.

With the Industrial Revolution and the Agricultural Depression of the 1870s, I think they would've lost quite a bit of money, potentially even their place as landed gentry. They would've still been quite rich, but their wealth was probably in decline and they had to look elsewhere. Maybe they never succeeded in this.

The thing is, we know next to nothing about the Riddles and the family we see through Tom Riddle's eyes is one that's lost status and connections because of the scandal of Riddle Snr. having run off with Merope without being married and (rumours have it!) having a child out of wedlock. The Riddle family probably declined economically with WWII (and to a lesser extent WWI) as well, although they never got a chance to really see the era through properly due to their… untimely deaths.

I think if Tom had been raised by the Riddles, they may not have fallen so far, providing Riddle Snr. married Merope before her death, or at least had falsified documents that he did. Tom would've still grown up in declining wealth, but more than enough money still to not have to work. Life for Tom would've been far better, what without starvation, disease, poverty and later, bombs and would've remain largely untouched by the war. The Great Depression wouldn't have it so hard, and Tom, not being surrounded by so much death, would've been fundamentally altered. I'm not sure what the Riddle's reaction to Tom being magic would've been like, but I'll leave that to any writers. All in all, Tom missed out on a far better life.

Thank you so much for the ask! It really made my day!!

#this is really interesting #love the historicall context #tom riddle #tom marvolo riddle #hp meta #riddle family #tom riddle meta #hp #harry potter #voldemort

32 notes · View notes

hollowed-theory-hall · 3 days

Note

what do you think about unicorn blood? specifically whether drinking unicorn blood affected voldemort in any way?

Hmm... honestly, I don't think it affected him at all. I think the unicorn blood was consumed by Quirrell, for Quirrell, and not Voldemort.

When Harry describes the figure drinking the unicorn blood, he mentions the mouth under the hood on the side Quirrell's face is on, not the back of his head:

The hooded figure raised its head and looked right at Harry — unicorn blood was dribbling down its front. It got to its feet and came swiftly toward Harry — he couldn’t move for fear.

(PS, 185)

And Voldemort explains why Quirrell would need the unicorn blood:

“Only one power remained to me. I could possess the bodies of others. But I dared not go where other humans were plentiful, for I knew that the Aurors were still abroad and searching for me. I sometimes inhabited animals — snakes, of course, being my preference — but I was little better off inside them than as pure spirit, for their bodies were ill adapted to perform magic . . . and my possession of them shortened their lives; none of them lasted long. . . .

(GoF, 653-654)

The hosts he used kept dying on him, and Quirrell was also slowly dying as long as Voldemort possessed him. Voldemort is fine, he has his Horcruxes, if Quirrell died, it'd be like any of the other snakes he possessed before — he'd return to his wraith form and move on.

The only reason he had to get Quirrell unicorn blood is so Quirrell would live long enough to get the philosopher's stone and get himself a body of his own. Because Voldemort would live regardless of what happened to Quirrell. Which we see, as Quirrell dies, but Voldemort is fine (well, relatively, he's still a wraith)

As for what I think it does, well, Firenze explains it as such:

“Harry Potter, do you know what unicorn blood is used for?” “No,” said Harry, startled by the odd question. “We’ve only used the horn and tail hair in Potions.” “That is because it is a monstrous thing, to slay a unicorn,” said Firenze. “Only one who has nothing to lose, and everything to gain, would commit such a crime. The blood of a unicorn will keep you alive, even if you are an inch from death, but at a terrible price. You have slain something pure and defenseless to save yourself, and you will have but a half-life, a cursed life, from the moment the blood touches your lips.”

(PS, 186)

So, unicorn blood keeps you alive, if barely. It would just keep your body moving and breathing.

As for what exactly it curses you with?

We have no real way of knowing for sure. Quirrell seems worse for wear for most of the year, and he has been drinking unicorn blood for a while before Harry sees Quirrellmort in the forest, so it's hard to tell what are the effects of being possessed versus the unicorn blood curse.

If I had to guess what this half-life means, I'd say it correlates to the unicron's purity. Because Firenze states the curse is the result of killing something as pure as a unicorn. So, the curse would correlate, like karma for the death of the unicorn, and not the act of drinking its blood. So it's not the unicorn blood that curses you, but killing the unicorn, like slaying something holy.

I think of it as something like Odysseus' men killing the divine, immortal cattle of the god Helios and having various gods proceed to destroy their ships and curse their journey with bad luck, like the opposite of Felix Felicis. So, if I had to guess what's the curse of killing a unicorn, it'd be something along these lines.

#harry potter #hp #hollowedtheory #harry potter theory #hp theory #asks #hp meta #wizarding world #harry potter meta #anon asks #anonymous #voldemort #quirinus quirrell

13 notes · View notes

hollowed-theory-hall · 3 days

Text

I really like this outlook on Dumbledore. It's not that he's a laughing-maniacly-mostache-twirling cartoonish evil villain, and it makes him fascinating.

I truly believe Dumbledore does what he thinks is best. but to make the kind of decisions he does, from sacrificing Harry, to willfully endangering students so confrontations between Harry and Voldemort could be set up at the end of every year (I really agree with Dumbledore setting Voldemort to target Harry on purpose and there's so much evidence for it, I should cover it at some point). How he uses Snape, Sirius, and the rest of the order — to make all these decisions he has to be stone-cold and calculating. He has to be a bastard to let it all happen. To play his 5D chess and not shatter under the guilt.

And we see from people who do know Dumbledore well (Aberforth) that he never was this golden image he represents. This ideal of Dumbledore so many characters see and believe and swear by.

And Dumbledore really has a tendency to keep to the status quo and not do anything to change the problems that caused Voldemort to rise as easily as he did. I mean, even if we ignore his potential ministry-sanctioned political power and just look at him as the Headmaster of Hogwarts, I would've expected to see at least some work against bullying. Not allow favoritism between the houses. Some attempt to curb the house rivalries away. To make Slytherin house slightly less of a bigoted Death Eater training ground and more like a school house... basic things like that.

The only revolutionary things we know Dumbledore actually did as a headmaster are:

Ban a bunch of dark magic books from the school. Even in the restricted section.

Stop corporal punishment.

The second I wholeheartedly agree with.

The first, while it's something, it's more like a bandaid over a larger problem. Getting rid of dark magic books won't stop the dark arts. How Snape says it:

“The Dark Arts,” said Snape, “are many, varied, ever-changing, and eternal. Fighting them is like fighting a many-headed monster, which, each time a neck is severed, sprouts a head even fiercer and cleverer than before. You are fighting that which is unfixed, mutating, indestructible.”

(HBP, 177)

So even by removing the dark arts books, it's not that the dark arts would stop existing. Someone who seeks out this knowledge will find it. Or create new dark spells. And, I mean, anyone who played Hogwarts Legacy knows you can torture and kill with Diffendo, Incendio, and Accio just as well as with any unforgivable if you really wanted to. Besides, the moment something is forbidden (especially with kids and teenagers) you make them more curious and more likely to research about it. This ban does nothing to uproot the problem but looks nice on paper.

Like many things Dumbledore does. It's nice he opposed giant killings, and that he let Remus go to Hogwarts, but he doesn't really act to make things better in any integral way. He puts a nice coat of paint over problems that are way more ingrained and require more work to be put in.

It's also interesting how he said he could not be trusted with the power of being the minister, but just, kept accepting power. I mean, I get it, he wants the power, and knows he can't be trusted with it, but he wants it, so he agrees to every position that falls into his lap. It doesn't make him evil, but it makes him a bit of a conniving asshole. And he kind of is. When you actually know him for him, beneath all his persona he's not a kind or pleasant man to be around.

The same thing he told Grindlewald echoes in all his actions:

Your point about Wizard dominance being FOR THE MUGGLES’ OWN GOOD—this, I think is the crucial point. Yes, we have been given power and yes, that power gives up the right to rule, but it also gives us responsibilities over the ruled. We must stress this point, it will be the foundation stone upon which we build. Where we are opposed, as we surely will be, this must be the basis of all our counterarguments. We seize control FOR THE GREATER GOOD

It doesn't matter if what he does is actually good, or if it does anything at all. What matters is the perception of it. That it's perceived as being "for the greater good".

So, yeah, he's not cartoonishly evil, but he's a scarily realistic portrayal of a cold and calculating politician.

Originally put this in a message to someone but I'm still salty so I'm posting it here too.

#harry potter #hp #harry potter thoughts #hp thoughts #wizarding world #albus dumbledore #hp meta #albus dumbledore critical #i guess #thats why i hate him much more than voldemort #voldemort is an easy to recognaize evil #he's honest and upfront about it and you can't get the wrong idea #dumbledore is a subtle kind of nefarious that is portrayed as good intention #it's the kind of nefarious we see more often in the real world #and it scares me much more than voldemort's kind of evil

60 notes · View notes

hollowed-theory-hall · 3 days

Text

With all he must've disliked the connection to his father of his appearance, he still used it when it suited him. He didn't like Hephzibah's attention, but he told Harry in CoS:

If I say it myself, Harry, I’ve always been able to charm the people I needed.

(CoS, 287)

So, he's very much aware of it.

I also wanted to bring up @kittenjammer's tags:

He is and did. And I think he preferred his different features. It made him more than a man, more than a wizard, untouchable in a way he wasn't before.

The taboo on his name, and even before it, no one used his name, making him into some type of boogeyman more than a human being. Something he encouraged since he sees himself as unique and different and above the rest. As better.

His appearance proving he was on a whole different level than the rest was probably a joy for him.

I feel like people try so hard to separate Tom Riddle from Voldemort because Tom Riddle is a tiktok sexy bad boy and Voldemort is a repulsive children’s book villain that they miss many important and interesting aspects of their characterisation. Tom Riddle is Voldemort, and within Voldemort lives Tom Riddle. I think it’s fascinating that early on Tom tried to forge a new identity for himself and you don’t have to be a budding Dark Lord to want to do that, that’s a common experience of bad childhoods. And Voldemort carrying his past everywhere and being doomed by it is also fascinating. It makes him human. He can’t escape his own humanity. It’s funny that people try so hard to sever one from the other because it’s what Voldemort tried to do himself.

#voldemort #tom riddle #hp meta #hp #harry potter #tom marvolo riddle #lord voldemort

491 notes · View notes

hollowed-theory-hall · 4 days

Note

What is your take on Riddle's possession of Ginny? I read a fic where she was held accountable for not immediately reporting the diary after she blacked out and started to suspect that something nefarious was going on. Stating that she 'wilfully' time and again put saving her own skin over the lives of her fellow students and teachers.

Thoughts??

Like, Tom definitely did possess her. Do I think Ginny took the best course of action in the situation? No. But I don't put as much fault on her for this as some things she does later in the books.

In CoS, Ginny is 11 years old, lonely & friendless, Tom is her only friend, she shares her secrets with him and then he turns and uses her secrets to blackmail her. Both what he forced her to do and what she told him.

Imagine how angry I was when the next time my diary was opened, it was Ginny who was writing to me, not you. She saw you with the diary, you see, and panicked. What if you found out how to work it, and I repeated all her secrets to you? What if, even worse, I told you who’d been strangling roosters?

(CoS, )

To an 11-year-old Ginny, this threat is terrifying. Terrifying enough to not tell anyone because she's scared of the consequences.

And she did try to get rid of the diary by flushing it down the toilet. So she tried to remove the source of the problem without notifying anyone. It just ended up not working out.

Ginny in CoS is mostly motivated by loneliness at first, and then fear. This threat Tom mentions in the above quote, I'm sure is one he made to Ginny. He probably explained exactly why she shouldn't tell anyone or throw the diary away. He probably told her she'd be expelled from Hogwarts if anyone found out.

While I'm not a Ginny fan, I don't judge 11-year-old Ginny too harshly. This is a terrible situation to be in. Because she feels like she doesn't have anyone to confide in besides the diary that causes all her problems. She is in a new school, her first time away from home, and new people all around, it can be terrifying, and I think it was for her.

And then you add Tom into the mix who's clever and knows how to manipulate a scared 11-year-old girl. Ginny didn't have much of a chance there. It's not like Harry told any adult about the strange talking diary (that being said Harry just doesn't trust adults).

Molly and Arthur Weasley aren't the perfect examples of supportive parents either, I don't think Ginny would've risked her parents' ire over her own problems. She probably thought (hoped) she could figure it out herself and not have to bother them. Because bothering them would've come with a punishment. I talked about how Arthur and Molly Weasley aren't great parents, and Ginny was probably scared of their punishment and her mother screaming at her like she does at Fred and George more than she feared what would happen to the other students.

“Ginny!” said Mr. Weasley, flabbergasted. “Haven’t I taught you anything? What have I always told you? Never trust anything that can think for itself if you can’t see where it keeps its brain. Why didn’t you show the diary to me, or your mother? A suspicious object like that, it was clearly full of Dark Magic —”

(CoS, 304)

Like, Arthur says this, but he and Molly don't behave in a way that encourages their kids to confide in them. So, Ginny has a reason for her fears, it's not that they're unfounded.

And she won't tell her older brothers, because she doesn't want them to see her as a scared helpless little girl. She's scared of their opinion of her just as much. And I think she truly thought it wouldn't get too bad, that she could figure it out on her own. She was wrong.

Yes, her decision is selfish, it's dumb, it endangered so many students and people in general, and it doesn't paint her in a great light. But since she was 11 at the time, I'm more willing to give her the benefit of the doubt about it. Like, I'd be more lenient when punishing 11-year-old Ginny over the CoS ordeal. I think a stern talking-to was the bare minimum, so at least it won't happen again. She probably should have received some consequences, but I don't think I'd expel or even suspend her over it.

Like, I'd probably want to make sure she understood what her actions could have resulted in so she'd be more fearful of that potential scenario in the future rather than her own skin. And I think she did understand she herself was in just as much danger by the end of the book. Like, I think this situation wasn't one she should've been punished harshly for, but instead used as an opportunity for her to learn from the situation.

A punishment should've still been given though, and I don't recall it was. Because she did hurt students (through her neglect) and was incredibly lucky no one got really harmed. So, some punishment more than she got in the books was required, but not something too harsh is what I'm thinking.

#harry potter #hp #harry potter thoughts #hp thoughts #Ginny Weasley #chamber of secrets

23 notes · View notes